Suppressors?

Dumptruck said:
Ear protection can be achieved with a 2$ ear protection. This is where your argument is invalid.


Actually, from an accident (harm) prevention stand point you are incorrect. The aim is to always to control the harmful condition as close to the source as you possibly can by engineering it out. PPE is a last resort. In this case making the firearm quieter is the most efficient way to prevent hearing damage.
Click to expand...

Ya sure. You are right.

But its illegal.

Making a move on suppressors would be an instant political death for anyone elected. It will not change, especially with weak arguments like this.

It would be a whole other story if it was still legal and they were trying to make it illegal, that would worth a fight. Trying to make them roll-back that part of the legislation is hopeless.

Good luck. Keep dreaming :D
 
@Trich, you know I'm being sarcastic right? I work with night vision all the time!

And Striker 66 is definitely right. What Infideliceman is doing would certainly qualify as reason to investigate a prohibited device.
 
Rick911 said:
Ya sure. You are right.

But its illegal.

Making a move on suppressors would be an instant political death for anyone elected. It will not change, especially with weak arguments like this.

It would be a whole other story if it was still legal and they were trying to make it illegal, that would worth a fight. Trying to make them roll-back that part of the legislation is hopeless.

Good luck. Keep dreaming :D
Click to expand...

I love this, legalizing suppressors is political death with these "weak" arguments but you still think that removing mag limits is good to go because its a"PITA" for you to load a mag every 5 or 10 rounds.

Shawn
 
shawn said:
I love this, legalizing suppressors is political death with these "weak" arguments but you still think that removing mag limits is good to go because its a"PITA" for you to load a mag every 5 or 10 rounds.

Shawn
Click to expand...

No its because it can't be solved with a 2$ solution as the suppressor ''issues'' can. (Please don't start again with sound pollution and other lame arguments)

In fact there is no legal way to solve that mag issue. The issue is the PITA. The reason is that it can't be solved legally.

Hope its clear now.
 
This legislation was rolled back in the UK. It was rolled back because of health and safety requirements that required noise suppression to be executed at source first and foremost. The $2 solution does not solve the issue and no amount of dogma will change that. The fact of the matter is that more harm is done to people through lack of suppression than from any ban. It is a policy based in fiction. It is very achievable to rollback as has been shown in other parts of the world. Unlike the inconvenience of mag changes the lack of suppression leads to very real injury not just to the shooter but to bystanders.
 
There is a legal way to solve the non-issue of mag size. Stop being lazy.

Suppressors improve the safety of everyone surrounding a shooter and shooting range and not just the shooter. Your repeated $2 fix doesn't actually work for more than the shooter.
 
Where I shoot it really bothers the farmer on the adjacent property so I drastically reduced my shooting. I enquired about getting a suppressor legally but it was a no go.
 
Rick911 said:
No its because it can't be solved with a 2$ solution as the suppressor ''issues'' can. (Please don't start again with sound pollution and other lame arguments)

In fact there is no legal way to solve that mag issue. The issue is the PITA. The reason is that it can't be solved legally.

Hope its clear now.
Click to expand...

You really cant see you own hypocrisy can you?

FACT there is a legal way to solve the mag "issue", load the mag its free.

Shawn
 
$2 dollar solution? who pays this? I haven't used the same earplugs if they are the disposable kind which makes it more than $2. To get fitted with the moulded earplugs is expensive. There are more reasons to why we should than why we should not!

Simple solution - make the option available to those who want to apply, add restrictions and rules, create non arguable penalties for wrongful use, promote its use positively, could make it where you have to attend training or based on length of firearms license in years equals the availability to have and everybody is happy.

A human being can break every law if they choose to. If people follow laws, live lawfully and have records proving that they are law abiding then why the restrictions? Probability? Creating taller fences around sheeple does not fix the issue - fix the sheeple! Society has created dumber people and that's the trend these days! We have a freedom of choice and that cannot be governed. Anyone can flip their life as they know it right upside down faster negatively than positively.

Mag limit - makes no sense for Joe lawful - 1 bullet is still 1 bullet
Silencer - makes absolute sense to own and use as Joe lawful but cant have
night vision - has its purpose but $$$$ to its owner
auto selection - $$$$$ to the owner
Prohib vs restricted??? a firearm is a firearm
barrel length - it still shoots

wouldn't it be better if - you have a firearm - here are the rules and simplify not blah blah blah blah ......no no no no and no good reason as to why. Criminals have the above or can obtain these items anytime! Anyone can be unlawful! The system is made to fail! History has proof of what if's! Can I defend my family with a firearm equipped with a silencer and a full mag capacity - nope! I have to pick up a phone or die trying because even a criminal can sue its victim lol

Were all or majority of us are firearm owners on this site but there are still arguments between us with regards to law and that's why we have laws....We can make a difference if we all step up to plate and focus! So many do nothing and enjoy the benefits of those who try or succeed!
 
Rick911 said:
No its because it can't be solved with a 2$ solution as the suppressor ''issues'' can. (Please don't start again with sound pollution and other lame arguments)

In fact there is no legal way to solve that mag issue. The issue is the PITA. The reason is that it can't be solved legally.

Hope its clear now.
Click to expand...

But there's ways around it, Big bore AR pistol with 10 round pistol mags. ;)
 
Canuck525 said:
Why not suppressors for range use only? Surely we could swing that but I wouldn't even know where to start...
Click to expand...

I would say that most hearing damage is done to shooters while in the field, no wearing hearing protection. Let's not make concessions, here. If there is a logical reason for suppressors to be legal to own and use, then let's go for it with no apologies.
 
Rick911 said:
Making a move on suppressors would be an instant political death for anyone elected. It will not change, especially with weak arguments like this.
Click to expand...

This is hardly a weak argument. This is the EXACT argument the UK shooters used to sue their government and win the right to own and use silencers. The law prohibiting silencers violates the H&S law because H&S law requires noise to be engineered out at its source rather than covered up with PPE. As it turns out our law is almost exactly the same as the UK law. If it worked in the UK, there is no reason the same argument could not work here.

This is not a case of the government wanting to loosen firearms law for shooters but a case of the government being forced to repeal a bad law that violates other laws and forces citizens to expose themselves to harmful levels of noise. Government cannot force its citizens to harm themselves through law.
 
Ear protection can be achieved with a 2$ ear protection. This is where your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read the Legalize Silencers paper you'd know that this is not true. The research done by Dr Matthew Parker Branch, who is an otolaryngologist, shows that current hearing protection does not provide full protection from damaging levels of noise. Therefore, your so called $2 solution is not preventing hearing damage.

“Comparison
of
Muzzle
Suppression
and
Ear‐level
Hearing
Protection
in
Firearm
Use”

Matthew
Parker
Branch,
MD,
400
Hospital
Drive,
Suite
115,
Corsicana,
TX
751

http://oto.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/18/0194599811398872.abstract
 
Rick911 said:
But its illegal.
It would be a whole other story if it was still legal and they were trying to make it illegal, that would worth a fight. Trying to make them roll-back that part of the legislation is hopeless.
Click to expand...

You do realize that suppressors are completely legal in Canada , just not for us . As far as rolling back legislation think of the long gun registry . With the right case of arguments and facts presented it shouldn't be too difficult to delete about 3 lines of the criminal code so we can be included with those who can already legally own and use suppressors with the major difference being , ours would be for sporting applications and health and safety use only .
 
I have just been introduced to this thread. I have read through everyone's responses. It appears the majority of posters (90%) have their head screwed on straight and recognize the need for this change.
We have the documented evidence showing the need for suppressors
We have the documented evidence showing that crime has not risen in countries that allow them
We have prominent firearms lawyers in Canada
We have a legal case of the people suing a government in a very similar situation to ours, and winning
We have two major shooting associations (NFA and CSSA)

So, we need to involve the lawyers like Solomon, and the NFA and CSSA and have them put together a draft plan.
We need to organize a system to get the word out to the shooting community, educational info for shooters and non shooters alike.
We need to pool our money (if 1 million shooters donated 10 bucks each, we would have the bucks to take on government)
We need to consult with the groups in the UK to find out the details of their case.

A legal argument for the health and safety requirements is very solid. We just need the right people to kick it off. Whoever is still reading this that knows the folks at CSSA, NFA, and our prominent lawyers - can you please direct them to this thread. This is real guys, this one we can actually win for ourselves. There is no ideology involved, its not a matter of freedom. It is safety - the number one concern these days.
 
Striker you are correct in your quote of the law regarding prohibited devices the only flaw here is that the "device" was NOT designed to muffle the report of a gun ... It was designed to filter oil.
 
Infideliceman said:
Striker you are correct in your quote of the law regarding prohibited devices the only flaw here is that the "device" was NOT designed to muffle the report of a gun ... It was designed to filter oil.
Click to expand...

You might want to re-read it, because you are still wrong.

"prohibited device" means

(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,
Click to expand...

You are designing a device by making the bracket, mounting it to a tri pod and modifying the filter that is intended to muffle the report of a firearm. It is 100% a prohibited device. And you really need stop posting about it on the internet.

Shawn
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom